Columbus Education Association Time Waste Survey 2018 Summary

The Columbus Education Association conducted a Time Waste Survey as suggested by Dr. John Stanford to address redundant tasks in the 2018-2019 school year. The survey, based on a similar one from 2014, gathered data on avoidable tasks. Demographic summaries and responses were analyzed, with insights on completion rates and average completion times. Additionally, a Grade Cards Survey looked into grading practices for ES and MS/HS levels, revealing time spent on completing grade cards.

• Education
• Survey
• Time Management
• Columbus
• Data Analysis

isherm Follow

Uploaded on Sep 20, 2024 | 0 Views

Download Presentation

Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.

The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. Download presentation by click this link. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

Presentation Transcript

1. Columbus Education Association Time Waste Survey Prepared for Dr. John Stanford Monday, Aug. 13, 2018 Time Waste Survey conducted by the Columbus Education Association

2. Demographic Summary At the May 2018 Joint Labor-Management Meeting, Dr. Stanford suggested gathering data for redundant, duplicative and/or avoidable tasks to address for the 2018-2019 school year. CEA utilized a similar survey administered in 2014 as the template for the current survey. The questions were updated to reflect changes in the current education landscape. When applicable, results gathered in 2014 that are included in this survey to represent baseline data. Time Waste Survey conducted by the Columbus Education Association

3. Demographic Summary (Cont.) 2014 (Q1) 2018 (Q3) Number of CEA members who were sent the survey email 3,243 3,903 Number of CEA members who began the survey 1,348 1,393 Number of survey questions* 253 297 Response rate (includes partial responses) 41.4 % 35.6 % Number of complete responses 1,068 1,088 Completion rate 79.2 78.4 Average completion time (in minutes) - 12 Number of schools without at least one respondent 0 0 Combined years of service of all survey respondents 18,800+ 20,011 *Due to the utilization of skip logic in the survey, respondents were unable to answer all survey questions. Time Waste Survey conducted by the Columbus Education Association

4. Grade Cards Survey participants were asked whether or not they entered grades for the third quarter of the 2017-2018 school year. Respondents that answered affirmatively were asked which grade level (ES or MS/HS) they entered grades for. Grade card by type 434, 41% 614, 59% ES (Standards-based) MS/HS Time Waste Survey conducted by the Columbus Education Association

5. Grade Cards To complete the elementary standards-based report card, ES teachers: Provide 40-50 numerical achievement and effort grades for skills and subjects taught that quarter Include multiple student-specific comments for their students HS and MS teachers grades are automatically calculated as teachers enter grades in the Infinite Campus (IC) gradebook. Time Waste Survey conducted by the Columbus Education Association

6. Grade Cards: Time ES teachers were asked to estimate the amount of time (in hours) spent completing grade cards. Hours spent entering report card data 10 9 8 7 6.7 6 7.03 5 4 3 2 3.3 2.11 1 0 Q1 2014 Q3 2018 During the workday Outside of the workday Time Waste Survey conducted by the Columbus Education Association

7. Grade Cards: Comments Another time-consuming feature of the ES grade cards is the amount of time spent writing comments for each skill or subject taught during the quarter. ES administrators may or may not require their teachers to create personalized, student-specific comments instead of using general ones depending on whether or not a student is at or above grade level. Time Waste Survey conducted by the Columbus Education Association

8. Grade Cards: Comments Comment requirements: Above Grade Level Comment requirements: Below Grade Level 100% 100% 90% 90% 199 201 80% 80% 267 270 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 341 333 30% 30% 274 264 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% 2014 Q1 2018 Q3 2014 Q1 2018 Q3 Require personalized comments Do not require personalized comments Do not require personalized comments Require personalized comments Time Waste Survey conducted by the Columbus Education Association

9. Grade Cards Teachers whose administrators require them to personalize comments for students who are below, at or above grade level spend 20 percent longer completing their grade cards on average than teachers whose administrators allow them to use general comments for their students. Time Waste Survey conducted by the Columbus Education Association

10. Grade Cards: Comments Total Time: Personalized comments not required Total Time: Personalized comments required 10 11 9 8 9 7 6 7 11.03 9.15 5 10.61 8.22 5 4 3 3 2 1 1 Q1 2014 Q3 2018 Q1 2014 Q3 2018 Time Waste Survey conducted by the Columbus Education Association

11. Grade Cards: Comments Total Time: Personalized comments not required Total Time: Personalized comments required 10 11 9 8 9 7 6 7 11.03 9.15 5 10.61 8.22 5 4 3 3 2 1 1 Q1 2014 Q3 2018 Q1 2014 Q3 2018 Time Waste Survey conducted by the Columbus Education Association

12. Grade Cards: Entry Window ES survey participants were asked when they began entering their report card grades and comments. Nearly one-third of all ES teachers begin to enter their grades after the quarter ends. The calendar which sets the dates for grade entry for the 2018-2019 school year provides for less time for ES grade entry when compared to the 2017-2018 school year. Grade card entry timeline 39, 7% 165, 30% 111, 20% 232, 43% Three weeks before the end of the quarter. Two weeks before the end of the quarter. One week before the end of the quarter. After the end of the quarter. Time Waste Survey conducted by the Columbus Education Association

13. Special Education In early October of 2014, CCS agreed to the terms and conditions of a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) with ODE. The CAP increased the time required to accomplish many facets of Special Education Teachers work, including, but not limited to: Progress Reports IEP writing IEP meetings Though the district was released from the CAP, the requirements of the plan persist. Time Waste Survey conducted by the Columbus Education Association

14. Special Education: IEP Writing In 2014, Special Education teachers indicated at least a ten percent increase in the amount of time spent in the process for an individual IEP compared to the first quarter of the 2013-2014 school year. Hours spent per student IEP 5 4.5 4 3.5 3 3.68 3.19 2.5 2 1.5 1 1.18 0.5 1.03 0 2013-2014 2014-2015 During the work day Outside of the work day Time Waste Survey conducted by the Columbus Education Association

15. Special Education: IEP Meetings ES Special Education teachers report nearly one out of every four IEP meetings are held outside of their workday. Time of day when IEP meetings are held 100% 2 7 22 80% 60% 98 93 40% 78 20% 0% ES MS HS During the workday Outside of the workday Time Waste Survey conducted by the Columbus Education Association

16. Special Education: IEP Meetings (cont.) Special Education teachers indicated they are most often responsible for arranging coverage for their students IEP meetings. Arranging IEP Meeting Coverage 100% 8 16 90% 15 41 80% 15 18 70% 60% 50% 40% 87 160 30% 20% 10% 0% Q1 2014 Q3 2018 Special Ed. Teacher Don't know Administrator Secretary Time Waste Survey conducted by the Columbus Education Association

17. Special Education: IEP Meetings (cont.) The percentage of general education teachers who responded that they attended one or more IEP meetings during their instructional time increased by ten percent when compared to 2014. Frequency of IEP meetings during instructional time 100% Multiple times, 149 90% Multiple times, 97 80% 70% 60% Once, 664 50% Once, 99 40% 30% 20% Never, 98 Never, 236 10% 0% Q1 2014 Q3 2018 Never Once Multiple times Time Waste Survey conducted by the Columbus Education Association

18. Special Education: Progress Reports In addition to writing IEPs and completing interim/grade entry at the ES/MS/HS level, Special Education Teachers must complete Progress Reports for each of their students eight times per year. More than 75 percent of Special Education teachers (199 of 263) believe the amount of time required to complete Progress Reports negatively impacts instruction to their students. Time Waste Survey conducted by the Columbus Education Association

19. ES Special Education Teachers ES: Hours spent entering report card data and writing progress reports ES: Hours spent writing progress reports 25 12 10 20 8 5.3 9.06 15 5.36 6 9.7 4 10 4.4 2 3.7 11.24 5 0 5.77 Q1 2014 Q3 2018 0 Outside of the work day Q1 2014 Q3 2018 During the work day Grade card Progress reports Time Waste Survey conducted by the Columbus Education Association

20. MS/HS Special Education Teachers MS and HS Special Education teachers spend nearly 12 percent longer per quarter writing quarterly progress reports when compared to 2014. When compared to ES Special Education teachers, MS and HS Special Education teachers: Spent 13 percent less time per quarter overall writing quarterly progress reports Spent 10 percent more time working on quarterly progress reports during the workday Hours spent writing progress reports 9 8 7 6 4 5 4.09 4 3 2 3.95 2.92 1 0 Q1 2014 Q3 2018 Outside of the work day During the work day Time Waste Survey conducted by the Columbus Education Association

21. Special Education: Instructional Load Special Education teachers at every level provide instruction for multiple subjects to students at different grade levels. This number does not include the grade levels or subjects for students who are mainstreamed. Time Waste Survey conducted by the Columbus Education Association

22. Special Education: Instructional Load Special Education teacher average instructional load Subjects/ Courses Q1 2018 Subjects/ Courses Q1 2014 Grade levels Q1 2014 Grade Levels Q3 2018 ES 4.08 4.32 2.40 2.51 MS 3.44 3.30 2.24 2.61 HS 5.20 4.36 3.34 3.05 Time Waste Survey conducted by the Columbus Education Association

23. TBTs: Participation Since the 2012-2013 school year, it has been the expectation of the district that every teacher is a member of a Teacher Based Team (TBT). Approximately one out of every four respondents indicated they were on multiple TBTs for varying reasons. Number of TBTs Teachers are on 100% 165 90% 252 80% 70% 60% 50% 953 40% 1030 30% 20% 10% 0% Q1 2014 Q3 2018 One TBT More than one TBT Time Waste Survey conducted by the Columbus Education Association

24. TBTs: Meeting Times Less than two thirds of respondents indicated their TBT meets during the work day in 2014 and 2018. TBT Meeting Times 100% 90% 364 80% 511 70% 60% 50% 40% 703 30% 771 20% 10% 0% Q1 2014 Q3 2018 During the workday Outside of the workday Time Waste Survey conducted by the Columbus Education Association

25. TBTs: Meeting Times (cont.) Members who responded that their TBT meets outside of the workday provided a variety of reasons why. Time Waste Survey conducted by the Columbus Education Association

26. TBTs: Meeting Times (cont.) Reason for TBT meetings outside of the workday 100% 20 39 90% 149 80% 126 70% 60% 103 42 50% 9 37 40% 30% 199 245 20% 10% 0% Q1 2014 Q3 2018 Team decision Mult. work locations Mult. TBTs Admin unable to sched. Admin unwilling to sched. Time Waste Survey conducted by the Columbus Education Association

27. TBTs: ES Workday Meeting Times Assignable Time denotes ES specials and duty. Unassigned time includes ES planning/ preparation time and lunch. TBTs scheduled during assignable time nearly doubled from 2014 to 2018. ES: TBT meetings within the workday 100% Unassigned: Required, 39 Unassigned: Required, 119 90% 80% Unassigned: By Choice, 72 70% Unassigned: By Choice, 232 60% 50% 40% Assignable time, 198 30% Assignable time, 204 20% 10% 0% Q1 2014 Q3 2018 Assignable time Unassigned: By Choice Unassigned: Required Time Waste Survey conducted by the Columbus Education Association

28. TBTs: MS Workday Meeting Times Assignable Time denotes the MS duty period. Unassigned time includes the MS conference period and lunch period. TBTs scheduled during unassigned time decreased slightly from 2014 to 2018. MS: TBT meetings within the workday 100% Unassigned: Required, 22 Unassigned: Required, 27 90% Unassigned: By Choice, 19 80% Unassigned: By Choice, 26 70% 60% 50% 40% Assignable time, 98 Assignable time, 105 30% 20% 10% 0% Q1 2014 Q3 2018 Assignable time Unassigned: By Choice Unassigned: Required Time Waste Survey conducted by the Columbus Education Association

29. TBTs: HS Workday Meeting Times Assignable Time denotes the MS duty period. Unassigned time includes the MS conference period and lunch period. TBTs scheduled during assignable time increased from 2014 to 2018, however, HS teachers remain the largest group of teachers required to meet in TBTs during their conference period. HS: TBT meetings within the workday 100% 90% Unassigned: Required, 77 Unassigned: Required, 91 80% 70% 60% Unassigned: By Choice, 60 50% Unassigned: By Choice, 75 40% 30% 20% Assignable time, 71 Assignable time, 42 10% 0% Q1 2014 Q3 2018 Assignable time Unassigned: By Choice Unassigned: Required Time Waste Survey conducted by the Columbus Education Association

30. TBTs: Workday Meeting Times 2018: All TBT meetings within the workday 100% Unassigned: Required, 39 Unassigned: Required, 22 Unassigned: Required, 138 90% Unassigned: Required, 77 80% Unassigned: By Choice, 19 Unassigned: By Choice, 72 Unassigned: By Choice, 151 70% 60% Unassigned: By Choice, 60 50% 40% Assignable time, 98 Assignable time, 198 30% Assignable time, 367 20% Assignable time, 71 10% 0% ES MS HS All Assignable time Unassigned: By Choice Unassigned: Required Time Waste Survey conducted by the Columbus Education Association

31. Third Grade Reading Guarantee Students in grades K-3 who test off-track on either the KRA or MAP in the first quarter must be put on a RIMP for the duration of the school year. Respondents who self-identified as teachers of grades K-3 were asked questions regarding the amount of time specific tasks required by the 3GRG, and how long they took during and outside of their workday. Time Waste Survey conducted by the Columbus Education Association

32. RIMPs K K K K K K K 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 All All All All All All All Students on a first quarter RIMP Students on a first quarter RIMP Students on a first quarter RIMP Students on a first quarter RIMP Students on a first quarter RIMP Students on a first quarter RIMP Students on a first quarter RIMP 11.3 11.3 11.3 11.3 11.3 11.3 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.2 Total hours spent creating RIMPS first quarter Total hours spent creating RIMPS first quarter Total hours spent creating RIMPS first quarter Total hours spent creating RIMPS first quarter Total hours spent creating RIMPS first quarter Total hours spent creating RIMPS first quarter Total hours spent creating RIMPS first quarter 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 19.1 19.1 19.1 19.1 19.1 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Percentage of task accomplished during the workday Percentage of task accomplished during the workday Percentage of task accomplished during the workday Percentage of task accomplished during the workday Percentage of task accomplished during the workday Percentage of task accomplished during the workday Percentage of task accomplished during the workday 38.1% 38.1% 38.1% 38.1% 43.2% 43.2% 43.2% 43.2% 78.5% 40.4% 55.0% 78.5% 40.4% 55.0% 78.5% 40.4% 55.0% 78.5% 40.4% 55.0% Hours spent per quarter updating RIMPs Hours spent per quarter updating RIMPs Hours spent per quarter updating RIMPs Hours spent per quarter updating RIMPs Hours spent per quarter updating RIMPs Hours spent per quarter updating RIMPs Hours spent per quarter updating RIMPs 9.0 9.0 9.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 13.4 13.4 13.4 9.9 9.9 9.9 Percentage of task accomplished during the workday Percentage of task accomplished during the workday Percentage of task accomplished during the workday Percentage of task accomplished during the workday Percentage of task accomplished during the workday Percentage of task accomplished during the workday Percentage of task accomplished during the workday 39.2% 39.2% 46.5% 46.5% 44.8% 42.3% 43.0% 44.8% 42.3% 43.0% Days of instruction lost due to progress monitoring Days of instruction lost due to progress monitoring Days of instruction lost due to progress monitoring Days of instruction lost due to progress monitoring Days of instruction lost due to progress monitoring Days of instruction lost due to progress monitoring Days of instruction lost due to progress monitoring 5.9 5.2 6.0 7.1 6.2 Time Waste Survey conducted by the Columbus Education Association

33. Time Lost Due To Testing Respondents who self-identified as ES classroom teachers were asked to estimate how much instructional time they lost with their students due to state and district testing. Due to the widely varied nature of HS and MS testing schedules, estimates for instructional time lost are not included in this powerpoint. Time Waste Survey conducted by the Columbus Education Association

34. Time Lost Due To Testing MAP-R MAP-M ES WP 3GRG PM AIR KRA SB 140 N CA Total BOY MOY EOY BOY MOY EOY - - FA SP - - - - - K 2.59 2.67 2.59 2.36 2.64 2.35 2.04 17.83 - - 3.99 1.99 - - 41.04 1 2.00 1.97 2.00 1.81 1.87 1.95 3.25 15.58 - - - - - - 30.43 2 1.70 1.61 1.68 1.34 1.43 1.49 3.31 18.05 - - - - 0.69 - 31.29 3 1.79 1.95 2.15 1.40 1.55 1.67 3.59 21.20 1.75 3.33 - - - - 40.38 4 1.50 1.45 1.56 1.40 1.48 1.61 3.36 - - 2.75 - - - - 15.11 5 1.34 1.37 1.43 1.17 1.21 1.25 3.52 - - 4.47 - - - 1.51 17.27 Time Waste Survey conducted by the Columbus Education Association